Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

IDK, I like the "Jabbas barge" theme of the mini over all, I just with it was an actual palanquin rather than an ox-cart.

I think we will see an FEC redo down the line where they get the night haunt or DOK treatment where they are expanded upon.
FEC are now firmly entrenched as an army for AOS, it should reflect that.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I think we will see an FEC redo down the line where they get the night haunt or DOK treatment where they are expanded upon.
FEC are now firmly entrenched as an army for AOS, it should reflect that.

Eh I don't think DoK have yet had the treatment. Since launch they've only had added:

1) Underworld Warband - which honestly is one of the best in how GW has balanced the rules. Basically one unique leader with a retinue of guards who share a single profile. So instead of 5 or so "character" like units you've got 1 and a retinue which is much more sensible to manage in the wargame side of things

2) Warcry warband - which are a great addition, though strike me as a heavier hitting Khinerai unit. If Khinerai are a threat/distraction then Shadowstalkers are a blade that cuts and slices. Plus with constant shadow jumping they can remain a highly mobile thread. Note technically this unit hasn't had its AoS style army pack released (the chaos warbands all ahve two sets - one with 1 sprue and cards for warcry; one with 2 sprue sets and no cards, for AoS main).

3) One new generic snake leader.

They still don't have a terrain feature nor endless spells. I'd also argue that there's huge gaps in the army - things like general cavalry; artillery; a big monster unit that isn't Morathi etc... Lots of other ideas could easily be added. I did wonder if GW was going to do what they'd done with Legions of Nagash and they are sort of teasing in how they are moving some elements around, but it seems that the other Dark Elf models are remaining part of Cities of Sigmar (which is neat because whilst adding them in would bulk out the army, it would lose its "female dominated" angle quite quickly).

DoK are getting the "drip feed" treatment which means a few new things here and there to keep interest up, but no big second wave of models all in one big go.


GW can do both, some armies will get a big second wave and have a big update all in one go; others will get drip fed updates and might in the end end up with a big addition of models, just spread out over time instead of in big lumps. Both approaches are sound methods to expand armies.

They've been expanded on though. The flying unit, snake units, Morathi are all AoS additions. FEC is still WHFB kits other than a small hero and Underworlds warband and non unit 2.0 terrain/spells

 Eldarain wrote:
They've been expanded on though. The flying unit, snake units, Morathi are all AoS additions. FEC is still WHFB kits other than a small hero and Underworlds warband and non unit 2.0 terrain/spells

Oh true FEC got only 1 new model since AoS started. Granted that's the same story for Skaven too (though they didn't do too badly out of End Times) and has Seraphon had anything? Suffice it to say AoS is full of tiny armies that need lots and big armies with lots of legacy models that need an overhaul (heck Skaven still has metals)

Definitely true. And a bit more understandable to me on the Fantasy side of things as they prioritize getting the new ranges out.

Will be very interesting to see what route they take from here. I know they rely on new kits for sales which is why new things tend to outpace resculpts. I'd like to see a compromise approach taken where they put out new units that fill the roles of those old metals/finecast products.

 Mangod wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Funnily enough, I was thinking of precisely that model when I commented.

It's showing it's age a little at this point, but conceptually, yes; I think it conveys the same theme a hell of a lot better.

Honestly, I think the most important thing is that the Dominar Rasheth model is so much more focussed. There's so much unnecessary clutter on the Lord of Gluttony model that the theme is practically lost.

I think another issue might simply be that Glutos is too small; not just that he isn't fat enough, but that he's so close in size to the other characters that he kind of blends into the background of the model.

Compare him to Katakros:

Spoiler:

You can't deny that Big K is the centerpiece of his diorama, but I can't really say the same for Fatboy here.

Honestly that's the main reason it's an appealing model. It's a centerpiece, but it's not yet another towering "I'm a hero, so I'm physically larger than everyone else" affair. If you wanted to(and I do), you could even make a much more understated "fatty Lord on a chariot/litter" type model and have several cool regular miniatures left over to integrate into your army as characters.

Katakros reminds me of Shao Khan.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Honestly that's the main reason it's an appealing model. It's a centerpiece, but it's not yet another towering "I'm a hero, so I'm physically larger than everyone else" affair. If you wanted to(and I do), you could even make a much more understated "fatty Lord on a chariot/litter" type model and have several cool regular miniatures left over to integrate into your army as characters.

See, I partially agree with you.

I fully agree that powerful and important characters shouldn't need to be vastly larger than other characters in order to be powerful and important.

However, for me this applies not only to the actual character but also to their model as a whole. A powerful/important character shouldn't need to be bigger than other characters but nor should they need an entire diorama to show how important they are.

I miss the days when Vampire Counts could be among the most powerful and important models in the game, yet be merely the size of regular infantry/cavalry. Nowadays, vampires can only be powerful if they have massive mounts glued to their backsides.

I don't think the size of the model is necessarily to show importance, but because so many battlefields tend to look painfully boring and including so much scenery on bases tends to offer alot of pop and flavor.

Carlovonsexron wrote:
I don't think the size of the model is necessarily to show importance, but because so many battlefields tend to look painfully boring and including so much scenery on bases tends to offer alot of pop and flavor.

Personally, I thought battlefields looked a lot more interesting when they resembled historic formations with fantasy elements.

Each to their own, of course, but I'm afraid battlefields that look like two people who spilled lego all over their dinner plates and are in the process of exchanging them doesn't really appeal to me.

I really like the new slaanesh models, especially the mortals on the steeds, but the hero on the palanquin is pretty amazing too. Going to be wonderful to paint. I think one guy in my club is already game on to collect these when they come out. A bunch of us are all starting new AoS Armies.

I think its more a problem of no focus point and bad design angles overall.

The way I see it, and not repeating again the muddled concept of this mini, the breaking point IMO is that the main focal point ( and all projects need one) ( and no don't tell me that the focus point is the full piece, thats not how it works) simply is lost.

So the main guy regarding of big or small is stuck inside a walking palace and in front of him theres other miniatures... he has not many good angles to be seen in its full glory, from the top theres the palace and from the front other minis. You can only see him if its in isometric view XD

Not only he is not to focus point he is totally lost in the middle of so many random features. So what does remain from this diorama? Peacock lady with nice rack but man face

 vipoid wrote:

Carlovonsexron wrote:
I don't think the size of the model is necessarily to show importance, but because so many battlefields tend to look painfully boring and including so much scenery on bases tends to offer alot of pop and flavor.

Personally, I thought battlefields looked a lot more interesting when they resembled historic formations with fantasy elements.

Each to their own, of course, but I'm afraid battlefields that look like two people who spilled lego all over their dinner plates and are in the process of exchanging them doesn't really appeal to me.

I think you're playing the wrong game!

To be fair, I larelgy agree with you- but my perfect game would essentially be set in the Hyborian era but with kits still made by GW (so high on historical fantasy, low on most high fantasy elements- and that's how my own hobby tends to be)

That said, within the world of GW there isnt alot of varience of terrain if you're using just GW stuff, which they are certainly pushing. That being the case, might as well shove some more in via the big models.

 NAVARRO wrote:


Not only he is not to focus point he is totally lost in the middle of so many random features.

Yeah, this is it. Compare to the catacomb command barge, for example.

It also doesn't help that he's lounging in the shadows not really doing anything, while all the other elements of the model are in more dynamic poses. It probably would have worked better to remove the top, raise the platform he's on, and have him partially reclined on a couch eating food at the highest, most central point on the model.

Carlovonsexron wrote:
I think you're playing the wrong game!

Well, I'm not actually playing at all at the moment.


You're right, though, I'm basically a holdover from the days of WHFB. I've held onto my Vampire Counts army and would like to try out some games with Nagash/FEC at some point, but I've yet to buy into AoS in any meaningful capacity (save for some Sylvaneth stuff, which I've used exclusively for Drukhari conversions ). However, I strongly suspect that I simply won't enjoy playing Nagash due to how things have changed (with my beloved Vampire Lords now being barely tougher than regular, human mages, and everything apparently revolving around stupidly-overdesigned centrepiece models).

I'm keeping an eye on releases, in case I see something that makes me want to buy into AoS. As it stands, though, there's just been something about the aesthetic and general trend that I find off-putting. The only model I've been tempted by so far is the Abhorrant Archregent.

Other than that, I'm mostly waiting to see how they handle Dark Elves (if and when they can be arsed doing them at all).

As far as Slaanesh goes, I like a lot of the mechanics but I just can't stand the models.

Carlovonsexron wrote:

To be fair, I larelgy agree with you- but my perfect game would essentially be set in the Hyborian era but with kits still made by GW (so high on historical fantasy, low on most high fantasy elements- and that's how my own hobby tends to be)

I think I'm probably fairly similar. I definitely lean more towards preferring less high-fantasy stuff.

Most of the "showcase models" really aren't all that great. There's a few notable exceptions(Teclis and Nagash) but things like the Celestant-Prime, Eidolons, etc are not really "must haves".

Also, if you're wanting to see what they do with Dark Elves? Broken Realms: Morathi. They're basically 100% returned to form with their new Cities of Sigmar setup.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Most of the "showcase models" really aren't all that great. There's a few notable exceptions(Teclis and Nagash) but things like the Celestant-Prime, Eidolons, etc are not really "must haves".

Also, if you're wanting to see what they do with Dark Elves? Broken Realms: Morathi. They're basically 100% returned to form with their new Cities of Sigmar setup.

Are these the rules with the new city that gets no spells?

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Most of the "showcase models" really aren't all that great. There's a few notable exceptions(Teclis and Nagash) but things like the Celestant-Prime, Eidolons, etc are not really "must haves".

Also, if you're wanting to see what they do with Dark Elves? Broken Realms: Morathi. They're basically 100% returned to form with their new Cities of Sigmar setup.

Are these the rules with the new city that gets no spells?

Har Kuron is the 'return to form' for Dark Elves. Which also gets a full-on spell lore.
You can only take Darkling Covens(Sorceresses, Warrior variants, Black Guard, and Executioners), Order Serpentis(Dreadlords, Cold One Knights, War Hydras, Cold One Chariots), Scourge Privateers(Fleetmaster, Kharibdyss, Black Ark Corsairs, Scourgerunner Chariots), and Shadowblades(Assassins, Shadow Warriors, and Dark Riders). You can then also have 1 in 4 of your units be a Daughter of Khaine unit, gaining the Cities of Sigmar and Har Kuron keywords, and one of your Daughter of Khaine Priests can also cast a special prayer.

Misthavn, the other new city receives no spells but has the Narcotics and the Shadowstrike stuff which is not exactly small.

 vipoid wrote:


Personally, I thought battlefields looked a lot more interesting when they resembled historic formations with fantasy elements.

Each to their own, of course, but I'm afraid battlefields that look like two people who spilled lego all over their dinner plates and are in the process of exchanging them doesn't really appeal to me.

In AoS, I think you still can. In some respects I agree with you. Much of my AoS deployment and strategy are based very much off my Seven Years War/Napoleonic (the further back I went in historicals) gaming. I probably field longer ranks and thinner files because of that, but at the same time I still want to prevent outflanking. AoS doesn't provide a numerical bonus to doing so, but it still provides more frontage for attacks and less mobility for retreat (teleporting and flying notwithstanding).

I think in a lot of ways AoS provides a more honest approach to rank and file battling. You still have to maneuver, but no longer just tagging a side of an enemy formation leads to X and with +X bonus because of flanking/rear attack. Player also is in full control of the rank and file of their units, which I don't know how WHFB did it, but a cpouple games I played basically said this size and shape of ______ unit. Now I get to decide if I want go super thin (and risk losing nearly half of them if the opponent can pick which model to remove as an ability) or blob up.

I won't lie. Pile in and the micromanaging of combat movement is a pain in AoS. I am not so bothered by units getting intermixes (I assume what you mean by pile of Legos) as that is likely want is going to happen once armies start clashing in CQC. However, for a relatively straight forward and simple game AoS really gets nitpicky here and it becomes oh so important.

It probably is no wonder that my two AoS army are Slaves to Darkness and Lumineth Realm Lords. Both offer (and I think encourage) very traditional rank and file game play to the player. The first spoiler as the first time I actually won a game of AoS with basically nothing but Chaos Warriors and Chaos Knights (the spawn were a waste). The largest model I fielded was my Chaos Lord on Karkadrak (big lizard creature). That game I went for a denied flank going heavy on the side where I put all my Chaos Knights. The Warriors took the center of the field and stymied the enemy allowing my cavalry to rotate around gaining both the flank and rear allowing me to fully control that side of the battlefield in classic denied flank style.

The second spoiler is much of the same army just in a more traditional cavalry on the flanks (except my Varangaurd which was positioned to fight Fyreslayers) and infantry in the center. Again also a victory as my Chaos Warriors formed square (literally) on the static objectives. While my cavalry charged side objectives getting to them before my opponent could manage to place any resistance. That game was a blow out with me capturing all six objectives by turn two.





Yes, Age of Sigmar has some big, nice centerpiece units. They aren't at all needed to be in an army to play. Until I finally build and paint Archaon (which is more for display than game use for me), the biggest model I or S2S have is the Chaos Shrine from WHFB. Also, while this can most certainly change, big models tend to NOT be very good in AoS. They cost too many points, don't deliver enough damage/are resilient enough and usually can't capture objectives as well.

I am not going to say that AoS will fulfill your rank and file itch. It does for me, but I also only kinda like that type of game. What I will say is even if AoS is skirmish-styled (read: each model individually based), that doesn't mean a player can't have their army act in a manner similar to rank and file. I don't even think a player suffers from trying to do that. Even in AoS, it seems like a logical way of wielding large formations of troops.

:/

I think those pictures of an AoS 'battlefield' are helping make his point.

Voss wrote:
:/

I think those pictures of an AoS 'battlefield' are helping make his point.

What do you mean? The fact that it isn't an open field? I don't understand.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Har Kuron is the 'return to form' for Dark Elves. Which also gets a full-on spell lore.
You can only take Darkling Covens(Sorceresses, Warrior variants, Black Guard, and Executioners), Order Serpentis(Dreadlords, Cold One Knights, War Hydras, Cold One Chariots), Scourge Privateers(Fleetmaster, Kharibdyss, Black Ark Corsairs, Scourgerunner Chariots), and Shadowblades(Assassins, Shadow Warriors, and Dark Riders). You can then also have 1 in 4 of your units be a Daughter of Khaine unit, gaining the Cities of Sigmar and Har Kuron keywords, and one of your Daughter of Khaine Priests can also cast a special prayer.

Oh that looks quite interesting, actually.

Thank you very much for pointing me to it.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Voss wrote:
:/

I think those pictures of an AoS 'battlefield' are helping make his point.

What do you mean? The fact that it isn't an open field? I don't understand.

I think he might be referring to your opponent's "army".


Nevertheless, I appreciate your input and pictures. It's nice to see an example of something closer to a traditional army.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Voss wrote:
:/

I think those pictures of an AoS 'battlefield' are helping make his point.

What do you mean? The fact that it isn't an open field? I don't understand.

Well, for one, the battlefield itself. It looks like a playground sandbox (the brown textured paint inside 2x4s does not help) with a few bits of ruins stuck in it randomly- not at all like a historical battlefield.
Its honestly more an 'open field' than anything else- at least in the part of the battlefield that looks like it will actually get used.

Then the 'armies' themselves:
50-60 guys in a line across the entire battlefield facing off against a blob of some toy boats and a giant lizard.

 vipoid wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Voss wrote:
:/

I think those pictures of an AoS 'battlefield' are helping make his point.

What do you mean? The fact that it isn't an open field? I don't understand.

I think he might be referring to your opponent's "army".


Nevertheless, I appreciate your input and pictures. It's nice to see an example of something closer to a traditional army.

Can't control what your opponent fields. Only what you do. As I mentioned, currently most big models aren't that great. Those big centerpiece models in that Kharadon Overlord with Fyreslayers didn't do my opponent any favors against my army. My 15 Chaos Warriors and Chaos Lord on foot brought down the Magmadroth relatively quickly since it was over extended, and I don't remember that big boat doing much anything except lookin' pretty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Voss wrote:
:/

I think those pictures of an AoS 'battlefield' are helping make his point.

What do you mean? The fact that it isn't an open field? I don't understand.

Well, for one, the battlefield itself. It looks like a playground sandbox (the brown textured paint inside 2x4s does not help) with a few bits of ruins stuck in it randomly- not at all like a historical battlefield.
Its honestly more an 'open field' than anything else- at least in the part of the battlefield that looks like it will actually get used.

Then the 'armies' themselves:
50-60 guys in a line across the entire battlefield facing off against a blob of some toy boats and a giant lizard.

Well I will apologize. I don't have a whole lot of fantasy terrain. Basically the Warcry starter and that Khorne alter. Nor does the store I play at have much terrain. They mostly host 40k games, and as such don't have a huge selection. I thought I did an okay job creating a Chaos ravaged land with the resources available to me. I am glad to get feedback that I need to work on the presentation more.

Next time, I get a chance I will make sure to bring something like my Battle of the Bulge terrain set or Autumn in France/Germany set from by WWII games. I think they look a little pedestrian for fantasy especially Age of Sigmar. But I don't wish to offend again. I'll try and remember to PM you when I get the chance to play game with that to see if you approve. I can't do anything about the 2'x4' table border that's just how the tables are built where I play. I thought they were at least serviceable. You must have a much nicer place you game at clearly.

I don't think he was criticizing your battlefield on a technical level. He was using it to illustrate what someone else said about how AOS games look, which is to say, not much like WHFB or other games that use massed ranks and formations.

I'm not sure how important the point is overall, but it does seem to check out on its own terms.

We can shame people playing WFB too, otherwise.



It's not much better (the shaming and the point it tries to "prove").

In the end, it's only a matter of perspective.

No matter the game, even in historic games, you have beginners who try to do their best with what they have.

WFB was a game that didn't have much terrain.

AoS, from all I've seen, isn't like that. It's not quite to the level of 40k, but it's still far heavier than Fantasy was.

AOS seems to usually have a bunch of round or square blobby useless terrain pieces that mostly just sit there not doing anything except maybe making you roll every turn to see if you get a 6 and they do D3 something to nearby units. It feels vastly underutilized rule-wise compared to 40k, where terrain is much more important and consequential.

Sarouan wrote:

No matter the game, even in historic games, you have beginners who try to do their best with what they have.

I'm not sure how 'shaming beginners' got (theoretically) involved in this.

The posted pictures didn't match up well to vipoid's stated preference for interesting battlefields with fantastical historic formations. It looked like a public space (all the sale racks in the background) with planet bowling ball tournament-style terrain. The end.